Outcomes of weight-based vs. fixed dose of Pembrolizumab among patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess outcomes among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received treatment with pembrolizumab on a weight-based dose (WBD) or fixed-dose (FD) regimen using a non-inferiority (NI) analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with NSCLC weighing under 100 kg who received pembrolizumab between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020. Patients were grouped into either WBD or FD cohort based on the initial pembrolizumab dose and dosing regimen. The primary effectiveness outcome was overall survival (OS), analyzed using NI analysis with a lower margin of 10% comparing WBD to FD. Safety outcomes were all-cause emergency room visits or hospitalizations and incidence of selected immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and analyzed using NI analysis with an upper margin of 10%. All patients were followed until the end of health plan membership, death, or 30 June 2022, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 1413 patients were evaluated. OS was observed in 36.6% of the FD group, and 37.7% in the WBD group (rate difference: 1%, 90% CI: -6%-8%, NI p-value < 0.01). NI was met in all three safety outcomes: proportion of all-cause emergency room visits (rate difference: 1.1%, NI p-value < 0.01); proportion of hospitalizations (rate difference: 2%, NI p-value < 0.01); and composite incidence of irAEs (rate difference: -2.2%, NI p-value = 0.03). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that WBD of pembrolizumab may be as appropriate as FD for the treatment of lung cancer.

Systemic Therapy for Melanoma: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide guidance to clinicians regarding the use of systemic therapy for melanoma. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted an updated systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: The updated review identified 21 additional randomized trials. UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab was newly recommended for patients with resectable stage IIIB to IV cutaneous melanoma. For patients with resected cutaneous melanoma, adjuvant nivolumab or pembrolizumab was newly recommended for stage IIB-C disease and adjuvant nivolumab plus ipilimumab was added as a potential option for stage IV disease. For patients with unresectable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, nivolumab plus relatlimab was added as a potential option regardless of BRAF mutation status and nivolumab plus ipilimumab followed by nivolumab was preferred over BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. Talimogene laherparepvec is no longer recommended as an option for patients with BRAF wild-type disease who have progressed on anti-PD-1 therapy. Ipilimumab- and ipilimumab-containing regimens are no longer recommended for patients with BRAF-mutated disease after progression on other therapies.This full update incorporates the new recommendations for uveal melanoma published in the 2022 Rapid Recommendation Update.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/melanoma-guidelines.

Ipilimumab with or without nivolumab in PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade refractory metastatic melanoma: a randomized phase 2 trial.

In this randomized phase 2 trial, blockade of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA-4) with continuation of programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma who had received front-line anti-PD-1 or therapy against programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 and whose tumors progressed was tested in comparison with CTLA-4 blockade alone. Ninety-two eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab, or ipilimumab alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included the difference in CD8 T cell infiltrate among responding and nonresponding tumors, objective response rate, overall survival and toxicity. The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival over ipilimumab (hazard ratio = 0.63, 90% confidence interval (CI) = 0.41-0.97, one-sided P = 0.04). Objective response rates were 28% (90% CI = 19-38%) and 9% (90% CI = 2-25%), respectively (one-sided P = 0.05). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57% and 35% of patients, respectively, which is consistent with the known toxicity profile of these regimens. The change in intratumoral CD8 T cell density observed in the present analysis did not reach statistical significance to support the formal hypothesis tested as a secondary endpoint. In conclusion, primary resistance to PD-1 blockade therapy can be reversed in some patients with the combination of CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03033576 .

Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant or Adjuvant-Only Pembrolizumab in Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

Effectiveness of Adjuvant Pembrolizumab vs High-Dose Interferon or Ipilimumab for Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Patients With Resected Melanoma: A Secondary Analysis of the SWOG S1404 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A key issue for the adjuvant treatment of patients with melanoma is the assessment of the effect of treatment on relapse, survival, and quality of life (QOL). Objective: To compare QOL in patients with resected melanoma at high risk for relapse who were treated with adjuvant pembrolizumab vs standard of care with either ipilimumab or high-dose interferon α 2b (HDI). Design, Setting, and Participants: The S1404 phase 3 randomized clinical trial was conducted by the SWOG Cancer Research Network at 211 community/academic sites in the US, Canada, and Ireland. Patients were enrolled from December 2015 to October 2017. Data analysis for this QOL substudy was completed in March 2022. Overall, 832 patients were evaluable for the primary QOL end point. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to treatment with adjuvant pembrolizumab vs standard of care with ipilimumab/HDI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of life was assessed for patients at baseline and cycles 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 after randomization using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Biological Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM), FACT-General, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Diarrhea, and European QOL 5-Dimension 3-Level scales. The primary end point was the comparison by arm of cycle 3 FACT-BRM trial outcome index (TOI) scores using linear regression. Linear-mixed models were used to evaluate QOL scores over time. Regression analyses included adjustments for the baseline score, disease stage, and programmed cell death ligand 1 status. A clinically meaningful difference of 5 points was targeted. Results: Among 1303 eligible patients (median [range] age, 56.7 [18.3-86.0] years; 524 women [40.2%]; 779 men [59.8%]; 10 Asian [0.8%], 7 Black [0.5%], 44 Hispanic [3.4%], and 1243 White [95.4%] individuals), 1188 (91.1%) had baseline FACT-BRM TOI scores, and 832 were evaluable at cycle 3 (ipilimumab/HDI = 267 [32.1%]; pembrolizumab = 565 [67.9%]). Evaluable patients were predominantly younger than 65 years (623 [74.9%]) and male (779 [58.9%]). Estimates of FACT-BRM TOI cycle 3 compliance did not differ by arm (ipilimumab/HDI, 96.0% vs pembrolizumab, 98.3%; P = .25). The adjusted cycle 3 FACT-BRM TOI score was 9.6 points (95% CI, 7.9-11.3; P < .001) higher (better QOL) for pembrolizumab compared with ipilimumab/HDI, exceeding the prespecified clinically meaningful difference. In linear-mixed models, differences by arm exceeded 5 points in favor of pembrolizumab through cycle 7. In post hoc analyses, FACT-BRM TOI scores favored the pembrolizumab arm compared with the subset of patients receiving ipilimumab (difference, 6.0 points; 95% CI, 4.1-7.8; P < .001) or HDI (difference, 17.0 points; 95% CI, 14.6-19.4; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of a phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that adjuvant pembrolizumab improved QOL vs treatment with adjuvant ipilimumab or HDI in patients with high-risk resected melanoma. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02506153.

Combination Dabrafenib and Trametinib Versus Combination Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Advanced BRAF-Mutant Melanoma: The DREAMseq Trial-ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

PURPOSE: Combination programmed cell death protein 1/cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4-blockade and dual BRAF/MEK inhibition have each shown significant clinical benefit in patients with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma, leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exist to guide the choice of either initial therapy or treatment sequence in this population. This study was conducted to determine which initial treatment or treatment sequence produced the best efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase III trial, patients with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive either combination nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm A) or dabrafenib/trametinib (arm B) in step 1, and at disease progression were enrolled in step 2 to receive the alternate therapy, dabrafenib/trametinib (arm C) or nivolumab/ipilimumab (arm D). The primary end point was 2-year overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were 3-year OS, objective response rate, response duration, progression-free survival, crossover feasibility, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were enrolled, with 73 going onto step 2 (27 in arm C and 46 in arm D). The study was stopped early by the independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee because of a clinically significant end point being achieved. The 2-year OS for those starting on arm A was 71.8% (95% CI, 62.5 to 79.1) and arm B 51.5% (95% CI, 41.7 to 60.4; log-rank P = .010). Step 1 progression-free survival favored arm A (P = .054). Objective response rates were arm A: 46.0%; arm B: 43.0%; arm C: 47.8%; and arm D: 29.6%. Median duration of response was not reached for arm A and 12.7 months for arm B (P < .001). Crossover occurred in 52% of patients with documented disease progression. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities occurred with similar frequency between arms, and regimen toxicity profiles were as anticipated. CONCLUSION: Combination nivolumab/ipilimumab followed by BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy, if necessary, should be the preferred treatment sequence for a large majority of patients.

TP53 Gain-of-Function and Non-Gain-of-Function Mutations Are Differentially Associated With Sidedness-Dependent Prognosis in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: To examine the association of gain-of-function (GOF) and non-gain-of-function (non-GOF) TP53 mutations with prognosis of metastatic right-sided (RCC) versus left-sided colorectal cancer (LCC). METHODS: This cohort study included patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who had next-generation sequencing performed from November 2017 to January 2021. We defined R175H, R248W, R248Q, R249S, R273H, R273L, and R282W as GOF and all other mutp53 as non-GOF. We used Cox regression modeling to examine the association between GOF and non-GOF mutp53 and overall survival (OS), adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, performance status, Charlson comorbidity index and receipt of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of total 1,043 patients, 735 had tumors with mutp53 and 308 had wild-type p53 (wtp53). GOF was associated with worse OS than non-GOF mutp53 only in LCC (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66 [95% CI, 1.20 to 2.29]), but not in RCC (HR = 0.79 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.26]). Importantly, RCC was associated with worse OS than LCC only in the subset of patients whose CRC carried non-GOF (HR = 1.76 [95% CI, 1.30 to 2.39]), but not GOF mutp53 (HR = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.53]) or wtp53 (HR = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.28]). These associations were largely unchanged after also adjusting for RAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, and microsatellite instability-high. CONCLUSION: Poorer survival of patients with metastatic RCC versus LCC appeared to be restricted to the subset with non-GOF mutp53, whereas GOF versus non-GOF mutp53 was associated with poorer survival only among patients with LCC. This approach of collectively classifying mutp53 into GOF and non-GOF provides new insight for prognostic stratification and for understanding the mechanism of sidedness-dependent prognosis. If confirmed, future CRC clinical trials may benefit from incorporating this approach.

Adjuvant Pembrolizumab versus IFNα2b or Ipilimumab in Resected High-Risk Melanoma.

We conducted a randomized phase III trial to evaluate whether adjuvant pembrolizumab for one year (647 patients) improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS) in comparison with high-dose IFNα-2b for one year or ipilimumab for up to three years (654 patients), the approved standard-of-care adjuvant immunotherapies at the time of enrollment for patients with high-risk resected melanoma. At a median follow-up of 47.5 months, pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer RFS than prior standard-of-care adjuvant immunotherapies [HR, 0.77; 99.62% confidence interval (CI), 0.59-0.99; P = 0.002]. There was no statistically significant association with OS among all patients (HR, 0.82; 96.3% CI, 0.61-1.09; P = 0.15). Proportions of treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 to 5 were 19.5% with pembrolizumab, 71.2% with IFNα-2b, and 49.2% with ipilimumab. Therefore, adjuvant pembrolizumab significantly improved RFS but not OS compared with the prior standard-of-care immunotherapies for patients with high-risk resected melanoma. SIGNIFICANCE: Adjuvant PD-1 blockade therapy decreases the rates of recurrence, but not survival, in patients with surgically resectable melanoma, substituting the prior standard-of-care immunotherapies for this cancer. See related commentary by Smithy and Shoushtari, p. 599. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 587.

Current Challenges in Access to Melanoma Care: A Multidisciplinary Perspective.

A diagnosis of melanoma requires multidisciplinary specialized care across all stages of disease. Although many important advances have been made for the treatment of melanoma for local and advanced disease, barriers to optimal care remain for many patients who live in areas without ready access to the expertise of a specialized melanoma center. In this article, we review some of the recent advances in the treatment of melanoma and the persistent challenges around the world that prevent the delivery of the best standard of care to patients living in the community. With the therapeutic landscape continuing to evolve and newer more complex drug therapies soon to be approved, it is important to recognize the many challenges that patients face and attempt to identify tools and policies that will help to improve treatment outcomes for their melanoma.

Continuous versus intermittent BRAF and MEK inhibition in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma: a randomized phase 2 trial.

Preclinical modeling suggests that intermittent BRAF inhibitor therapy may delay acquired resistance when blocking oncogenic BRAFV600 in melanoma1,2. We conducted S1320, a randomized, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial (NCT02196181) evaluating whether intermittent dosing of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic and unresectable BRAFV600 melanoma. Patients were enrolled at 68 academic and community sites nationally. All patients received continuous dabrafenib and trametinib during an 8-week lead-in period, after which patients with non-progressing tumors were randomized to either continuous or intermittent dosing of both drugs on a 3-week-off, 5-week-on schedule. The trial has completed accrual and 206 patients with similar baseline characteristics were randomized 1:1 to the two study arms (105 to continuous dosing, 101 to intermittent dosing). Continuous dosing yielded a statistically significant improvement in post-randomization progression-free survival compared with intermittent dosing (median 9.0 months versus 5.5 months, P = 0.064, pre-specified two-sided α = 0.2). Therefore, contrary to the initial hypothesis, intermittent dosing did not improve progression-free survival in patients. There were no differences in the secondary outcomes, including overall survival and the overall incidence of treatment-associated toxicity, between the two groups.

Immune-related Adverse Effects Associated with Programmed Death-1 Inhibitor Therapy in the Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Incidence, Management, and Effect on Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors may improve survival outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients but are associated with immune-related adverse effects (IRAEs). Management of IRAEs may include immunosuppression (ie, corticosteroids), but there is concern that this may affect efficacy. This study evaluated the influence of IRAEs and immunosuppression for IRAEs on survival outcomes of NSCLC patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab and nivolumab). METHODS: We retrospectively examined data from Kaiser Permanente Southern and Northern California members diagnosed with NSCLC who received a PD-1 inhibitor from March 1, 2011 to September 30, 2016. Our primary goal was to evaluate the effects and management of IRAEs on survival with PD-1 inhibitors. Electronic database records were used to identify the occurrence of IRAEs, medication utilization, and death. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate variables for association with increased risk of death. RESULTS: A total of 662 patients were included in the study (median age = 68 years) (interquartile range 61-74). IRAEs were identified in 18% of patients, of which 62% received immunosuppression. Median overall survival was 10 months (interquartile range = 4 months to not reached). Adjusting for covariates, use of immunosuppression during PD-1 inhibitor treatment was not associated with a significantly higher risk of death (hazard ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval = 0.84-1.29), whereas corticosteroid use before initiating PD-1 inhibitor therapy was (hazard ratio = 1.48, 95% confidence interval = 1.14-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, real-world cohort from an integrated healthcare system, use of corticosteroids prior to PD-1 inhibitors was associated with worse survival outcomes, whereas concomitant treatment was not.

Inhibiting Histone Deacetylase as a Means to Reverse Resistance to Angiogenesis Inhibitors: Phase I Study of Abexinostat Plus Pazopanib in Advanced Solid Tumor Malignancies.

Purpose This phase I trial evaluated epigenetic modulation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and hypoxia-inducible factor by using a histone deacetylase abexinostat in combination with pazopanib to enhance response and reverse resistance. Patients and Methods Pazopanib was administered once a day on days 1 to 28 and abexinostat was administered orally twice a day on days 1 to 5, 8 to 12, and 15 to 19 (schedule A) or on days 1 to 4, 8 to 11, and 15 to 18 (schedule B). Dose escalation (3 + 3 design) in all solid tumors was followed by dose expansion in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Results Fifty-one patients with RCC (N = 22) were enrolled, including 30 (59%) with one or more lines of prior VEGF-targeting therapy. Five dose-limiting toxicities, including fatigue (n = 2), thrombocytopenia (n = 2), and elevated AST/ALT (n = 1), were observed with schedule A; one dose-limiting toxicity was observed (elevated AST/ALT) was observed with schedule B. Grade ≥ 3 related adverse events included fatigue (16%), thrombocytopenia (16%), and neutropenia (10%). The recommended phase II dose was established as abexinostat 45 mg/m2 twice a day administered per schedule B plus pazopanib 800 mg/d. Objective response rate was 21% overall and 27% in the RCC subset. Median duration of response was 9.1 months (1.2 to > 49 months). Eight patients (16%) had durable control of disease for > 12 months. Durable tumor regressions were observed in seven (70%) of 10 patients with pazopanib-refractory disease, including one patients with RCC with ongoing response > 3.5 years. Peripheral blood histone acetylation and HDAC2 gene expression were associated with durable response to treatment. Conclusion Abexinostat is well tolerated in combination with pazopanib, allowing prolonged exposure and promising durable responses in pazopanib- and other VEGF inhibitor-refractory tumors, which supports epigenetically mediated reversal of treatment resistance.

A phase I trial of nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and capecitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Substantial antitumor activity has previously been demonstrated with the addition of nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane [Celgene, Summit, NJ]), an albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel, to gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Given preclinical evidence of synergy when a fluoropyrimidine is added to gemcitabine plus a taxane in a sequence-specific schedule, we conducted a phase I study to evaluate the combination of nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine, and capecitabine administered biweekly in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer and an ECOG performance status of 0-1 were eligible to participate. Study design utilized a 3 + 3 dose-escalation schema, with expanded cohort at maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). Treatment was administered in 14-day cycles, with capecitabine given on days 1-7 and both gemcitabine (at fixed-dose rate infusion) and nab-paclitaxel on day 4 of each cycle. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definitions included grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities and grade 2-4 hand-foot syndrome, neuropathy, or diarrhea. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were enrolled across two dose levels. Final MTD was established at nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m(2), gemcitabine 750 mg/m(2), and capecitabine 750 mg/m(2) twice daily. Patients received a median of four treatment cycles (range 1-16). The most frequent adverse events (any grade) for the entire study cohort included fatigue, rash/hand-foot syndrome, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, neuropathy, and elevated liver function tests. Ten patients (66.7 %) experienced at least one grade 3-4 adverse event. Grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities were uncommon. Two of 14 evaluable patients (14.3 %) exhibited a partial response, and 6 of 12 patients (50 %) with elevated CA19-9 at baseline had a ≥50 % biomarker decline. CONCLUSION: While well tolerated overall, this regimen demonstrated only modest antitumor activity in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Recognizing the limits of cross-study comparisons and small sample size, these results do not match those reported at MTD in the phase I/II trial of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. The lower doses used in the current study suggest that dose intensity may be a critical aspect to optimize multidrug regimens.

Role for neutral sphingomyelinase-2 in tumor necrosis factor alpha-stimulated expression of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM) in lung epithelial cells: p38 MAPK is an upstream regulator of nSMase2.

Neutral sphingomyelinases (N-SMases) are major candidates for stress-induced ceramide production. However, there is little information on the physiological regulation and roles of the cloned N-SMase enzyme, nSMase2. In this study, nSMase2 was found to translocate acutely to the plasma membrane of A549 epithelial cells in response to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) in a time- and dose-dependent manner. Additionally, TNF-alpha increased N-SMase activity rapidly and transiently both endogenously and in cells overexpressing nSMase2. Furthermore, the translocation of nSMase2 was regulated by p38-alpha MAPK, but not ERK or JNK, and the increase in endogenous N-SMase activity was abrogated by p38 MAPK inhibition. In addition, both p38-alpha MAPK and nSMase2 were implicated in the TNF-alpha-stimulated up-regulation of the adhesion proteins vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM), but this was largely independent of NF-kappaB activation. These data reveal p38 MAPK as an upstream regulator of nSMase2 and indicate a role for nSMase2 in pro-inflammatory responses induced by TNF-alpha as a regulator of adhesion proteins.